cAPSLOCK said:
I am finding this thread extremely interesting. There are a lot of things to learn really.
Is it normal for the crowd to be so hostile though? And to a relatively new member?
But I do like thinking about hypothetical situations where family pots can offer special circumstances.
Another question I have is sort of philosophical... If NLHE poker is ONLY (or even primarily) about statistics then why is it so hard to code a winning NLHE strategy computer program?
And next... to what extent do non statistical factors in NLHE strategy play a part?
To put it more to the point when would "who you are playing with" matter enough to change "when you should bet" like the example of the early freeroll, or the 05/10 cent ring game at the nursing home.
Of course, I don't know why I might wade in here and risk being called an idiot.
love,
cAPS
I don't think anybody called anybody an idiot. I said Cowboy was getting cranky because he was.
But who's disparaging whom anyway? You say you've learned a lot on this thread. There are many well-reasoned responses as to why Cowboy's play is a bad one. Not that he's a bad person or a bad player, but that this particular advice is verifiably bogus. Rather than counter these responses, he
tells us to go back to the Dummies book and yells to re-read his thread. He says ignore the 20%, but his original thread is where he laid out the paramaters which are: first hand of a tournament, call up to 20% with any two cards including 72o.
It's not bad what he has in mind. He's looking for huge implied
odds. But there's no reason to think he'll defy statistical probability and hit a monster often enough to justify a huge call. And when it comes to beginners' books - that's one of the main premises: know your playable hand ranges.
Cowboy is giving terrible advice. He's basically saying be a calling station in the worst possible position. Then if you don't hit, get away from it. We mortals might not be able to do that, but Cowboy will always have perfect knowledge - even though he's the first to act, and he'll know just when to fold or bet the two pair he just hit. Cowboy probably is a pretty good post-flop player. He'd have to be to adhere to a strategy like this.
Note that he didn't talk about creative play like coming back with a raise to see where he stands, etc. Just to call against statistical odds.
This has not been an arguments. It's been a discussion. Now maybe it's an argument. There is a lot of kindness to new players here, but it's a two-way street. Several of us have put quite a bit of effort in cogently responding to Cowboy's question. But we're dummies. Then he gets an e-mail from a mysterious player and because there's this one person who happens to agree with him but doesn't have the strength of his conviction to participate openly in the discussion, now we're all one-dimensional players who just will never get it. Who sent you the e-mail, Cowboy? I bet it was Doyle himself. Well, then. That settles it.
My concern is not about convincing Cowboy because obviously that is not going to happen. My concern is with the integrity of the forum. CarsdChat has been a place where topics can be discussed accurately and dispassionately, minds can be changed and many things can be learned. Now with this 50-post race going on, there's a plethora of bad advice in the forums. I hate to see beginners exposed to this kind of stuff, but I guess they will benefit in the long run if they can wade through it and learn how to discern quality from crap.
I doubt this is a big hole in Cowboy's game because the 20% scenario he describes is pretty rare. I look for good implied odds too, but usually not at that price and in that position. But in analyzing poker problems, you look at the long run. If you make that play at every opportunity and there are going to be thousands of opportunities over the course of your career, what are the effects on your
bankroll going to be? If it's clearly shown that it's a losing play but you still want to do it, what's the logic in that?
As to poker being a purely statistical game, of course it's not. One of Sklansky's priniciples is to manipulate the situation so your opponent will do the opposite of what he would do if you were playing your cards up. If it's pure statistics, then just play all the cards up. But you assess your opponents, you project an image and represent different
hands. you
bluff, you trap, sometimes you make a call against one player that you wouldn't against another because of the implied odds. But if there is one part of poker that's more clearly statistically determined than others, it is when to make a CALL. Not a bet or a raise, but a CALL. If you are going to call when you don't have the
pot odds, you should have a good reason. We've asked Cowboy to show us what that reason is and all he comes up with is that we're one-dimensional players who should re-read his original post then go back to the dummies books.
I'm glad you found something of value in this thread. Cowboy says he likes discussing, but I can't find an instance here where's he's done any discussing or contemplating at all. But perhaps you have.
Gary
